Why TAM is a Scam & Harvey's Billion-Dollar GPT Secret #shorts

Name: Why TAM is a Scam & Harvey's Billion-Dollar GPT Secret #shorts
Uploaded: 2026-02-23T12:48:23+00:00
Duration: 14 s
Channel: Jason M. Lemkin
Description: In this short panel discussion, Jason M. Lemkin and two other speakers dissect the usefulness of Total Addressable Market (TAM) as a metric, argue that…

23 Feb 2026 · 0 min

Watch on YouTube

0:14

In this short panel discussion, Jason M. Lemkin and two other speakers dissect the usefulness of Total Addressable Market (TAM) as a metric, argue that technology itself reshapes TAM, and evaluate the legal‑AI startup Harvey. Speaker B praises Harvey’s product‑market fit, noting its rapid 300% YoY growth to $190 M ARR and a valuation around $11 B, while also acknowledging the broader inefficiencies in the legal industry that make a GPT‑driven solution attractive. Speaker C pushes back on the industry‑wide label “GPT wrapper,” contending that the term is unhelpful and should not be used to blanket‑classify deals. Lemkin interjects with a comparison to Databricks’ growth (56‑65% at a $5.5 B valuation) to illustrate how investors lean into high‑growth narratives. The conversation blends admiration for Harvey’s execution with skepticism about over‑reliance on generic market‑size jargon.

You got to, because if you're generating, it's a reason to say no to Databricks growing 56% at $5.5 billion, right? Or 65%, 65% of $5.5 billion, right? You just, sometimes you gotta lean into it if you wanna make money at least.
I don't know, TAM is a, I've always struggled with the concept of TAM, right? Because our whole job in technology is to change TAM actually. Like if you think about it, the TAM of technology has changed as a whole. For 50 years. I think Harvey is a fantastic business, but let's not forget, if anyone's been involved in legal proceedings or court cases or even just dealt with a lot of lawyers, they're not an efficient part of an industry, right? And they deal with a lot of text. So you'd argue that there is a ripeness to do that and credit to this company. Maybe Harvey is a GPT wrapper, but you know what? They're a GPT wrapper that's got a product that their customers like. They've got a go-to-market model that's clearly working in a market that probably doesn't have a lot of competition to start with. Good job building a piece of technology that customers want and hence a valuable business, whether it's worth $11 billion or whatever. Okay, great. But like it's growing 300% a year at 190 ARR.
Fantastic business. Totally great. I want to come back on two things. One is, because I realize as I replay it, I was using the word GPT wrapper as a third— I didn't— that's not a phrase I would use. It was a phrase that was applied to the sector and then people simultaneously were doing this. And I'm pointing out the divergence. You can't— It can't be bought at the same time. I think that, you know, you can't— people are, you know, if you're doing a deal like this, and I think it's an amazing deal, and we have a deal in a related space, I don't buy the GPT wrapper appellation is my point. I don't think it's a useful phrase, right?